Talk:Disciple whom Jesus loved

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A present, this article is about a phrase, so the bolded entry should be italicized. It may be better to make the article about a person. In that case, an article can be inserted and the italics removed. -Acjelen 17:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] John 20

I don't know what "although John 20 has these two figures together, even in early times" is suppose to mean. The sentence once was referring to an event in the Gospel of John (and a fairly important one) when Mary Magdalene tells Simon Peter and the Beloved Disciple that Jesus' tomb is empty. The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news. They appear "together" in the scene with Simon Peter. An editor has added "even in early times" to the end of the sentence. I am not sure if this editor means that John 20:2 existed in the earliest versions of John's gospel or that early Christians knew Mary wasn't the Beloved Disciple because of oral traditions of Mary telling those two disciples, or something else. The same editor then goes on to discuss the gnostic Gospel of Mary. I would like this editor to explain what "even in early times" adds to the sentence in questions. -Acjelen 02:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Aclelen wrrites: "The point is that Mary cannot be the Beloved Disciple if she goes and tells him her amazing news."

I believe , an assumption on your part--Tomtom9041 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How? -Acjelen 15:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been shown that there are inconsistencies in the text of these verses, both in the narrative flow and in the structure, that give fairly strong evidence that the text has been redacted. These have the rather odd tendency to appear whenever the Beloved Disciple and Mary are portrayed in the same setting. For instance, Mary is tracked up until the point where she runs from the tomb to tell Peter (and supposedly the Beloved Disciple), before she suddenly reappears at the tomb, etc.. Essentially, the gospel of John retains her in every place where tradition has already firmly placed her (where it would be conspicous to replace her outright; in these places, she appears together with the "Beloved Disciple"), whereas she is replaced in other locations. There's some fairly strong evidence elsewhere as well, plus the bits about her and Peter more or less competing; with Peter going on to pretty much found the church, it's no wonder an anonymous alternate author is considered more appealing than a woman. Although I guess you could say that it's simply more appealing than the idea that Peter would try to hide her role in this, since that would be a pretty grave sin (pride, envy, etc.) by e.g. Catholic standards... (Like the bit about "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.")
I'm not going to argue the point here, as there are already several works out there that deal with this that I'm not going to repeat, but if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance. Zuiram 11:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have reverted your addition to the article without reading the talk page. I'm sorry. If you could summarize the issue of a redactor spliting Mary into Mary and the Beloved Disciple, that would be a good addition, but I think it deserves more treatment that a single clause. Also if writer Brown has a book with these ideas, it should be listed in the references. There have been a number of books about Mary lately. I wonder if any of them mention (or don't mention) this redaction idea. -Acjelen 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see: (a) how ANY of the Beloved Disciple verses refer to Mary Magdalene, and (b) how her being female has any relevence to this. The verses in John that mention the Beloved Disciple are John 13:23-25; John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:2-7; John 21:20. In John 13:23-25, the Beloved Disciple is listed as a male, and the only people listed at the Last Supper are the Twelve Disciples. In John 19:26, he says the Beloved Disciple is to be the son to Mary, and Mary to be his mother. In John 20:2, Mary Magdalene comes to the Beloved Disciple to report the news of the resurrection. In John 21:2-7, a group of men (listed in verse 2... John is one of the “sons of Zebedee”) are fishing, and the Beloved Disciple sees Jesus. In John 21:20, Peter is wanting to find out what is to happen to the Beloved Disciple (John has historically been understood to be the youngest of the Twelve), and there is a reference to this being the same Beloved Disciple as from John 13:23-25. Literally every verse supports the maleness of the Beloved Disciple. I suppose you could claim that these verses were "redacted," but without these verses, you don't even have a Beloved Disciple (by this, I mean if you got rid of the male-specific verses, there are literally no other mentions).
As for the idea that "if Mary had been male, I'm pretty sure the evidence that has been presented so far would have been sufficient to gain acceptance," there's just no basis. The idea it was Mary is a recurring minority view that has never found broad acceptance, and there's just no textual support for the position. Supporters of the view have to try and analogize between John and Gnostic texts (even though John almost certainly predates these competiting texts). Add to that the fact that John is the most fiercely anti-Gnostic of the Gospels (Doubting Thomas, the divinity/humanity of Christ in John 1, etc.), and there's just no plausible theory for why an anti-Gnostic would write in a bunch of pro-Gnostic ideas, only to have them mysteriously redacted by unknown editors, and replaced with wholly different references. Am I missing something? Is there anything in John's Gospel itself to support these views? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which John is Which

One element of identifying the Beloved Disciple is the question of who wrote the Gospel of John and whether the John in the gospel's title refers to the apostle and son of Zebedee or to some other man named John.

This is addressed at Authorship of John

In any event, John the Evangelist is used to mean the John referred to the the gospel's title (in a somewhat circular way).

It is this by definition.

An editor of this article has recently added a comment from King James I of England. In the context of the Wikipedia article, the addition is used to strengthen the position that John the Evangelist is the Beloved Disciple.

No, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear. It is about the fact that the position existed, and was a traditional one, rather than an argument supporting the position itself. It is a meta statement on the position, if you like.

But James' quote only says "John" and does not distinguish which John he means to imply had a homosexual relationship with Jesus.

That's splitting hairs.

In my opinion, this quote from the Scottish king

He was an English King too, and a very significant one, indeed, it is due to him that the King James Version exists. Highly appropriate that he should comment on it, don't you think?

would fit better in a section of the article discussing what the term Beloved Disciple means rather than who it refers to.

As mentioned above, it is a quote explicitely identifying that John was held to be the beloved disciple in earlier times, and that it wasn't just the position of academics. The sentence I framed the quote in made that clear.

I would like to hear from the contributor of this comment on its context in the article. -Acjelen 03:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To the person who contributes from the computer identified as 81.156.177.21: I do not understand what you write. You seem to argue against points I have not made and ignore ones I do. When James I compared his relationship with the Duke of Buckingham to Jesus' relationship with John, which John did he mean? Did he mean the theoretical John the Evangelist or John the Apostle or did James I think they were the same person? I ask you to answer one. Then I would like you to change this article to reflect that. If you want to use James I as evidence that the Beloved Disciple was John the Evangelist and not some other person named John (such as John the Apostle), then it would be better to state so more clearly. -Acjelen 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

81.156.177.21 User, you do not "own" this article anymore than I do. I found the information from the Secret Gospel of Mark to be fascinating. I even suppose that the references to young men in Secret Mark could be the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in the Gospel of John. I admit that some scholars see evidence of a mystery religion. While I think that Jesus was asexual, others insist that he had to have been married, or even more think he might have been what we now mean with the term gay. None of these issues are clearly stated in the canonical texts or the noncanonical texts, so I don't think we should validate one interpretation over the others by giving it preference in the Beloved Disciple article. Information on the Lazarus story from John and other accounts of raising from the dead indicating part of a initiation rite into a mystery religion should be discussed in either the Lazarus article or in a new article (which I would probably find very interesting). We might mention him as a candidate and briefly explain the reasons, but the majority of the discussion on the connection of Lazarus to initiation rites should be found in another article (with a link, of course).

Finally, I would respectfully ask that you improve upon others writing and not just revert back to your initial edit of the article. Thank you. -Acjelen 20:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judas as beloved disciple

Read this in Gospel of Judas: "The portion of the manuscript that could be translated by later scholars tells of Judas being the favourite disciple of Jesus, possibly intended to be interpreted as the beloved disciple." Is it worth including? Cheesy 00:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Judas Iscariot has the same problem being the Beloved Disciple as does Mary Magdalene: each appears in a scene with the Beloved Disciple in the Gospel of John. -Acjelen 05:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, this is not necessarily a problem. The narrative flow and internal structure is inconsistent and incoherent in every section that deals with the Beloved Disciple. And with the Beloved Disciple dead at the time of the last redactions, there would be no reason to conceal his/her identity, except if it might lead to controversy. Judas and Mary both fit the bill, although the apocryphal texts (NHC etc.) seem to support Mary over Judas ("That is why he loved her more than us.", etc)...
Both theories are fairly common, and bear mentioning. It is, after all, the point of WP to document what is out there in an NPOV manner, not to make a decision where there is controversy. Zuiram 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Another reason Mary could be the Beloved Disciple despite the double mention is to obscure her identity. The very purpose of the roundabout phrase "disciple whom Jesus loved" is to obscure one's identity, so... Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 02:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources of Quotes

Sorry if I've missed something, but there seems to have been a fair bit of discussing whether the quote from King James is relevent (in my opinion, yes) but has anyone stated where the quote actually comes from? What is its source? -- Saluton 01:11 15th April 2006 (UMT)

[edit] Mark 9:38_Luke 9:49

reference to the other disciple whom Jesus loved can be found in Mark 9:38_And John answered Him,saying Master,we saw one casting out devils in thy name,and he followeth not us;and we forbade him,because he followeth not us.(this same quote is found in Luke 9:49) In John 21:20_Then Peter,turning about,seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following;which also leaned on his breast at supper,and said,Lord,which is he that betrayeth thee? In John 21:23_Then went this saying abroad among the brethren,that that disciple would not die. This is how and why the Disciples of Simon Peter started the myth of The Wandering Jew,to explain away(in negative terms)someone they felt was a threat to their church.For this same reason they also turned Mary Magdalene into a prostitute even though the gospel contains no mention of this. After all,the various gnostic and apocraphyl gospels may be in dispute,but one thing remains certain:only one apostle denied Jesus three times and tried to proclaim himself greatest of the twelve,and that was Simon Peter:The Prince Of Apostles.

While this may have bearing on your relation with the church, etc., it does not have any direct bearing on the subject of this talk page: discussing how to improve the text of the article in keeping with the policies of WP. It is not a soapbox. Zuiram 11:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question and comment

Question: There are references in the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail indicating that Lazarus might have been this disciple, which also makes reference to prior versions of the theory. That might be relevent for inclusion in this article.
Comment:I question the use of the Image:Jesus johannes.jpg image in the article, as it seems to be a backhanded reference to the article Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. I can see a direct reference to that article being included here, but the image without explanation seems to not make a great deal of sense. John Carter 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous versions of this article have included mention of Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple. It is probably worthwhile to add a summary of the treatment of the issue from Holy Blood, Holy Grail. As to the image, it seemed the best free use image I could fine. It's hard to find iconography that might not also be John the Apostle. The scene carved is a rather literal presentation of the positioning of Jesus and the Beloved Disciple at the Last Supper (though the probably weren't sitting), see John 13:23. I might add that the image was on this article lone before Homosexual readings of Jesus and John. There's nothing overtly homosexual about it. No kissing, no felatio or sodomy, no indications of living together or being a couple. In no way is it campy. No hint of Wildean rent-boys or dark parlors. Maybe Whitmanesque (and that probably influenced my choice), but that'd be hard to avoid considering the subject. -Acjelen 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but why do you think that for something to be gay it has to have 'kissing, felatio or sodomy'? For something to be heterosexual does it have to have kissing, cunnilingus and vaginal intercourse? No it doesn't. It is possible for gay people to be represented as loving each other as opposed to having sex, you know.

My definition was much broader than kissing, felatio, or sodomy. -Acjelen 04:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct. It included a "campy" visualization, rent-boys and dark parlors as well. I understand that, from this context, you may not approve of homosexuality, but you're doing yourself a huge disfavor by limiting your understanding of homosexuality to gross misrepresentation.
This is nothing new, and mankind has been doing this to their enemies for all times. The earliest Christians were said to sacrifice babies and have ongoing orgies. The Church Fathers said conflicting reports on the Gnostics, which included sexual promiscuity. To this day, many Anti-Semetic Muslim organizations explain that Jews use Muslim (and Christian) babies' blood in their passover meals.
Do as you may, but at the least respect yourself and understand exactly what it is you are talking about and not fall into the ignorant trappings of prejudice. You'll go a lot farther with that, and you'll be a better person as well. 74.77.122.119 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, I would say to Warlord that the image isn't in any way a reference to any homosexual reading of the relationship between Christ and John the Beloved but is a pretty accurate representation of how the disciple is described leaning on Christ's breast in the Gospel. ThePeg 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If the image was here first, and later borrowed for use elsewhere, then my comment above regarding the image is withdrawn. Thank you for the clarification. John Carter 15:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purposeful anonymity?

In the Lenten devotional guide A Season for the Spirit, Martin L. Smith SSJE suggests that perhaps the disciple whom Jesus loved

"...is never named, never individualized, so that we can more easily accept that he bears witness to an intimacy that is meant for each one of us. The closeness that he enjoyed is a sign of the closeness that is mine and yours because we are in Christ and Christ is in us.

Is this reading sufficiently widespread or notable to merit inclusion in the article? I can provide a full citation if it is. I've been reading Smith's book over the course of Lent this year, and found it very inspirational, but I don't know whether it would be considered encyclopedic or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The anonymity is purposeful. Any mainstream apologetic interpretation is encyclopedic, as long as it's a report of published remarks, which are cited in a note. This isn't a statement of fact from Wikipedia; it's a justification as offered by a specific Anglican. So, no problem!--Wetman 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Done — thanks! I just wanted to make sure that this sort of exegesis was appropriate for Wikipedia — I could see a potential problem arising if people started putting in every sermon interpreting a given text, but I suppose that that's taken care of by the requirement of reliable sources. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Name

I have only ever heard of this phrase being reformed as 'John the Beloved' which has more poetry and beauty to it. Is it worth mentioning that he is also called by this name? Can I put it in at the top? ThePeg 21:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' Son by Mary Magdeline?

In the popular science show, The Tomb of Jesus, the hypothesis is advanced that the Beloved Diciple may be Jesus' own son, and the reason for the anonymity is that the author wanted the Roman authorities to remain ignourant of his source's very existence. What does everyone think? 71.233.230.223 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think non-Christian bible research considers the "Beloved Disciple" to be Mary Magdalene herself. --Drieakko 08:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to that Mary Magdalene bit, I think that the support this article offers is really shady. For example, the cite to John 19:25 is actually to 19:25 and the first half of 26, but the quote stops at a really misleading point. If the rest of 26 is included, it's pretty clear that the Beloved Disciple isn't Mary Magdalene, but John, since MM isn't a "son" (obviously, John isn't literally Mary's son, but the point is that he's in charge of taking care of her, as her biological Son is dying). The entire section of trying to prove that MM might be the Beloved Disciple is really POV, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.33 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)